Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Plait

:{{la|Phil Plait}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Plait Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Phil Plait}})

Article's topic does not himself appear to have been the focus of multiple independent third party reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC; appearing in documentaries, publishing some books/ articles, and having a blog do not make a person notable. Even having a notable blog does not make its author notable. Being the subject of other people's attention makes a person notable, and I do not see this here. This appears to be an extended résumé whose citations include works by the article's subject. Awards are for blog, not subject, or are not national competitive ones. Appearing on television does not make a person notable. Neither does having someone name an asteroid after you. KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Any one of those things would not be notable. When taken all together, yeah, he's notable enough. Article is well sourced, and does a decent job of covering both subject and career. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I think nom misinterprets WP:PROF. Plait has both a substantial research notability (his citation list from WoS is 167, 117, 93, 92, 87, 81, ...) and his book Bad Astronomy is held by almost 2000 institutions, Death from the Skies by almost 1300 institutions etc, according to WorldCat. These metrics show conclusive pass of PROF c1. This will be a snow keep shortly...nom may want to withdraw to save others' time. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC).
• Keep Substantial coverage. Just because his blog is all over the place, doesn't mean ignore all the news about him and his books. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Agricola has it right. Notable for both academic and popular work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Research articles, notable books, television and news appearances, a VERY popular blog for nearly 2 decades... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, as noted by Mr. Agricola above. Significant coverage and meets any general notability standards. Kuru (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep While the subject seems to meet General Notability Guidelines, I'm not sure it was obvious from the citations in the article, which have leaned heavily on the subject's own writings and sources from organizations he is or has been affiliated with. User:Everymorning has since done some good work supplementing existing cited material with citations from significant secondary coverage including a few of the following:
• {{cite web | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0128/p25s01-stss.html | title=The Bad Astronomer | work=Christian Science Monitor | date=28 January 2004 | accessdate=30 January 2015 | author=Thaller, Michelle}}
• {{cite web | url=http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2013/01/phil-plait-bad-astronomer-and-champion-for-science-2/ | title=Phil Plait: Bad Astronomer and Champion for Science | work=Wired | date=14 January 2013 | accessdate=30 January 2015 | author=Williams, Jenny}}
• {{cite web | url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Profile-Phil-Plait-Astronomer-works-for-2858943.php | title=Astronomer works for heavens' sake / Rohnert Park man corrects misconceptions | work=San Francisco Chronicle | date=29 March 2002 | accessdate=30 January 2015 | author=Doyle, Jim}}
• {{cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/science/11WIRE-SPACE.html | title=Moon Hoax Spurs Crusade Against Bad Astronomy | work=New York Times | date=11 January 2001 | accessdate=30 January 2015 | author=Reuters}}

:I submit that in addition to his recognition on various television programs and print media, as well as his cited academic work on high-resolution stellar imaging, significant coverage in these independent secondary sources (as well as more like them) meets the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Nmillerche (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Phil Plait is a notable public figure. He has the media appearances and mainstream media citations to support that.Dustinlull (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and WP:TROUT the nominator... Meets GNG on multiple fronts. a13ean (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - is this a serious AFD? Robman94 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - first "Phil Plait" "astronomer" gets about 100k hits on Google; second Google finds him interviewed by Entertainment Weekly; third he is mentioned in articles on Huffington Post, and Mother Jones; fourth he has published in Discover Magazine, Slate, and Space.com, all well known main-stream sites; fifth he did a three-part documentary broadcast on the Discovery Channel; sixth his "Crash Course" on YouTube, is financially supported, in part, by both YouTube, and PBS Digital Studios, both would not sponsor a nobody; seventh I verified the number of libraries holding his books through my local library. All of this adds up to sufficient notability to remain an article. Among the Skeptic, and Science community he is quite notable. Nick Beeson (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The numerous and unanimous "keep" !votes above certainly rise to "snow keep". Can someone close this so that no more valuable time is spent beating a dead horse? Agricola44 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.